So the death penalty is bad because innocents sometimes get killed, but life imprisonment isn't? What about the innocents who are sent to jail for ten, twenty years, maybe even life? Is that better? This is what I don't understand. Someone convicted with murder should be given a choice between imprisonment or death. Why should a murderer take up the space of a jail cell when said space is limited? you mentioned this:

"Will a quick death teach them a lesson than having to rot in jail and keep thinking of their major mistake?"

True enough, but rot in jail and then what? Die? What is the difference between killing a murderer and letting him 'think about what he's done wrong' before dying in a prison cell? They can't repent. Even if they do realise that they've done wrong, most are just gonna have to remain imprisoned until death anyway. I'd rather give them the choice.

One thing I always thought about death row prisoners is that they have no qualms about what they do in prison. I mean they can shank a guy and get solitary for a month or three, and that's it? I mean they are going to get executed anyways right?

I'm going to be the black sheep and say I sorta support it... Throw your damn tomatoes if you want, but the point of arresting someone for a crime is to remove them from damaging society. And keeping someone jailed for life costs a shit load of money and resources that could go to improving society. And truly, confinement isn't much of a punishment for what some of these guys do, and jailing for life is just shifting them to the other side because we don't have the guts to take care of our problems.

Innocents aside (as that is law enforcement's and court's job), Death Penalty is still a poor choice, but what we have going now is bullshit.

lol i made sure and read all the posts before i said anything. and only one person pointed out that its the 8th amendment, not the 13th.

Its expensive to not kill them. thats a fact. exploring all other options..theres really no other way. the injection isnt as barbaric as the chair, thats for sure. we cant really deport them. rehab and theraphy will cost money and has no guarantee of working. i guess i support the death penalty.

You have to take in some considerations with the social climate of the society that patronizes capital punishment. Personally, I'm against capital punishment, simply because we are given no authority over earth or heaven to place judgement whether or not an individual deserves to live or die. But some societies, based on their reasoning, can promote plausible avenues to make capital punishment seem reasonable.

So speaking about the death penalty in countries that do not condone it will be so much more different than in countries that actually find it useful in quelling crime.

Guys anybody from the Philippines here? In any case you aren't a Filipino, there's a place called EDSA around here. This EDSA is where you see jaywalkers everywhere. Ignoring the traffic signs and ignoring the traffic enforcers. I came up with this idea. If I was to become a president of this country, I would put up SNIPER'S NEST on the island of the road in the middle. Everybody who jaywalks will be shot. And no case can be filed by the friends/family of the victim if the dead body would be found on the road. The victim's body wouldn't be on the road if he's not jaywalking. Believe me: WITHIN ONE WEEK, OR EVEN LESS, THERE WOULD BE NO ONE WHO WOULD DO JAYWALKING ON THE STREETS OF EDSA.

What I said may sound outrageous. But come to think of it, this would be 99.69% effective. So what's my point here? Criminals must be treated with Iron Fists. One reasons some criminals dont stop is because the authority is too gentle to them. Besides, what's the problem eliminating useless people? We're crowded here on earth. It shouldn't hurt losing one. Especially someone who might kill or do something horrible to your loved one on the future. If this person wud be kept alive, he might kill you loved ones.

wait... thou shalt not kill? and i suppose if the criminal has brutally massacred hundreds of people, you'd just let him go?!?! what the hell?!?!
i agree that the punishment should fit the crime though, they shouldn't be killed for robing banks or whatever, they should just serve time for that sort of thing. but if they've killed, they should be killed.
if there is completely conclusive evidence that they have commited a brutal crime, then yes; kill them. otherwise no.

Thou shalt not kill has nothing to do with it. The reason it's not Christian is because of the belief that humans are not meant to pass judgement, only God can.

I also heard about the cost of execution costing more than keeping them in prison.

"In a truly Democratic nation, I would rather see a criminal run free than an innocent imprisoned."

[EDIT] Although prisons are not used this way, they are meant as places of rehibilitation. The death sentance really is much more of a punishment, and contradicts the puropse of prisons.

Guys anybody from the Philippines here? In any case you aren't a Filipino, there's a place called EDSA around here. This EDSA is where you see jaywalkers everywhere. Ignoring the traffic signs and ignoring the traffic enforcers. I came up with this idea. If I was to become a president of this country, I would put up SNIPER'S NEST on the island of the road in the middle. Everybody who jaywalks will be shot. And no case can be filed by the friends/family of the victim if the dead body would be found on the road. The victim's body wouldn't be on the road if he's not jaywalking. Believe me: WITHIN ONE WEEK, OR EVEN LESS, THERE WOULD BE NO ONE WHO WOULD DO JAYWALKING ON THE STREETS OF EDSA.

What I said may sound outrageous. But come to think of it, this would be 99.69% effective. So what's my point here? Criminals must be treated with Iron Fists. One reasons some criminals dont stop is because the authority is too gentle to them. Besides, what's the problem eliminating useless people? We're crowded here on earth. It shouldn't hurt losing one. Especially someone who might kill or do something horrible to your loved one on the future. If this person wud be kept alive, he might kill you loved ones.

Calling people insane just because they don't agree with you is illogical and not nice.

Australia hasn't had the death penalty since 1967. The last man hanged, Ronald Ryan, had allegedly committed murder during a jail break. There was some doubt as to whether he was the one who had fired the fatal shot. But hey, why let a little detail like that stop him being hanged. I was 9 years old at the time. I disagreed with the death penalty then and I still disagree with it. If a mistake is made it isn't possible to release the person and compensate them when the truth comes out, and come out it often does. I'm not sure of the figures, but since the introduction of DNA testing, a lot of people awaiting death row in America have been cleared.

Quite apart from that, even if the person is guilty what gives us the right to kill them? It makes us just as bad as them. The only reasonable argument for killing someone is self defence or defence of your family, not retribution long after the event. (An extension of the self defence argument can also apply to a solder who kills the enemy to defend his/her country.)

Although we haven't executed anyone for 40 years, Australia has less murders per percentage of population than American, so the death penalty isn't a deterrent. I agree with the idea of making them do hard time, being forced to think for a very long sentence about what they have done.